|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 18, 2008 19:28:50 GMT -8
The fast cats were a proven design. Clarke's intention was to boost B.C. shipbuilding by having them built here then building more to sell offshore. His mistake was in handing over the construction to BCFC management. By drastically changing the ships design they altered its characteristics and drove up the costs. BCFC management knew nothing about ship building. In this case it would have been much better if the government had kept control. Keep your eye on SOF for more info on the fast cats and BCFC management next month. I think I'm getting the flavour of the SOF campaign: - BCF Management bad - NDP Government good. But the SOF means-to-its-goal is political, and this website is sounding like the pre-election campaign that it is. For me, I'm losing interest in the SOF message, but the fact that it's "ferries" is keeping me interested in an overall general way. But I've reached the cliff's edge in the ideological gulf that separates political wings. (very metaphorical, I think). ps: Is member "Kerryssi"'s signature quote inconsistent with his above-quoted post? Or does the signature-comment change depending on the government in power?
|
|
|
Post by deasislander101 on Feb 18, 2008 20:54:00 GMT -8
Gregg, welcome on board. The site looks great! You couldn't have made it more organised! I really liked the Credit Where Credit Is Due page! I look forward to be seeing more of The Save Our Ferries Campaign not only on this site, but around town, in the news, and elsewhere. Richmond welcomes you.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Feb 18, 2008 22:11:19 GMT -8
[I think I'm getting the flavour of the SOF campaign: - BCF Management bad - NDP Government good. But the SOF means-to-its-goal is political, and this website is sounding like the pre-election campaign that it is. For me, I'm losing interest in the SOF message, but the fact that it's "ferries" is keeping me interested in an overall general way. But I've reached the cliff's edge in the ideological gulf that separates political wings. (very metaphorical, I think). ps: Is member "Kerryssi"'s signature quote inconsistent with his above-quoted post? Or does the signature-comment change depending on the government in power? There have been lots of people on this forum with a 'BCF Management bad' attitude. Sometimes it's fairly articulate, sometimes it's just 'they're really stupid cuz they didn't put on an extra sailing.' Admittedly, I'm pretty biased, but I think there's room for a thread with an openly political thrust on a forum that deals with all aspects of ferrydom, especially if we're inclusive enough to indulge fifteen year olds who hold forth on what an idiot Glen Clark was, and how the NDP destroyed BC Ferries. It's difficult these days to get a pro-union view on a lot of issues. BC Ferries is a pretty large player in the British Columbia economy, and they're largely unionized. It seems appropriate that on a forum like this their viewpoint should be heard. I guess we can listen, argue, or change the channel, as we see fit.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Feb 18, 2008 23:19:12 GMT -8
Well said Neil. No one is forcing anyone else to read any particular thread - we are all here because we want to be. As long as the posts remain civil and in keeping with the spirit of the forum, I see no reason why people cannot be partisan and argue for a political party over another one.
What I would like to see though, is that the people that make such posts do so without hiding in the shadows about their real intentions. By this I don't mean that we need a disclaimer or anything, but if another forum member asks, then lets not hide or lie about our political leanings, or at the very least not deny that our postings may have political overtones (either overt or not). I myself am undecided politically, but tend to lean towards the current Liberals on some of their major political planks. This is also not to say that I am ANTI-union, which I am not. The Unions have built a great deal of BC, but by the same token, hard-core union diehards have also squandered away a large amount of opportunity through their unyeilding commitments and tunnel vision. A strong union is a good thing, but it must be responsive and representative of its membership. It is also the duty of a good union to be forward thinking and not be trapped in the past, savouring the glory of years gone by while the future runs circles around it.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Feb 19, 2008 6:03:46 GMT -8
There have been lots of people on this forum with a 'BCF Management bad' attitude. Sometimes it's fairly articulate, sometimes it's just 'they're really stupid cuz they didn't put on an extra sailing.' Admittedly, I'm pretty biased, but I think there's room for a thread with an openly political thrust on a forum that deals with all aspects of ferrydom, especially if we're inclusive enough to indulge fifteen year olds who hold forth on what an idiot Glen Clark was, and how the NDP destroyed BC Ferries. It's difficult these days to get a pro-union view on a lot of issues. BC Ferries is a pretty large player in the British Columbia economy, and they're largely unionized. It seems appropriate that on a forum like this their viewpoint should be heard. I guess we can listen, argue, or change the channel, as we see fit. That's why I created this thread a while back. I figured we could use an area where we could debate this issue and others.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Feb 19, 2008 8:24:01 GMT -8
I don't mind someone espousing their views whether political, union, management or otherwise. It should be possible to debate such issues without the discussion becoming a knock down drag out or people becoming personal. The minute someone bashes someone they don't agree with then they lose all credibility in my eyes. Name calling of BCFC Management (often by name) is one example of primary school methods that I don't think adds anything to the discussion. Freedom of speech is one thing, but there are many test cases cropping up for people liabling or slandering someone. The pendulum is going to swing back and people who have grown up using the web and think they can say whatever they want about anyone without impunity are going to find out otherwise. There are some innovative union solutions coming forward to dealing with some specific situations faced by business these days. Many with much controversy. However, they too often are in the minority. One union battle about to come up that will be interesting will be in 2009 and will involve a number of unions at Air Canada. Air Canada has turned itself around quite nicely and is one of the few successful airlines in North America outside the low cost carriers (WestJet, Southwest for example). There is a strong element within the unions that feel workers gave up a lot in concessions to help save the airline and now it is payback time. The unions better be mindful of the mood among the traveling public and realize what they do or not do this round will have a profound impact on the bottom line. And WestJet's bottom line more pointedly. It has the potential to impact people coast to coast and could have a powerful impact on public opinion, second only to a postal strike. Many members of the forum are too young to have whethered through a postal strike, but imagine the municipal strike in Vancouver, or a teachers strike on a national scale and you get the idea. So while unions are not in the PR business they had better be mindful of the long term impact of their actions on the union movement as a whole and the role they play in public opinion. Shooting oneself in the foot is a good analogy. A long winded way of getting to my main point about the SOF website. I agree with the concept that the ferry system is in a way part of the highway system. I was excited at the advent of the site. We will see how it involves but it appears to be a major PR push on the part of the union. I will assume all its content therefore to be biased and it is obviously skewed to a particular political party and in particular the ferry critic named. Kudos to them for trying something new and we will see how innovative and fresh the ideas espoused will be, or whether it will be the usual ongoing mangement has its head where the sun doesn't shine diatribes that don't contribute much. One new ideas being discussed among a group here is similar to as new developents pay a levy and an ongoing tax to help fund the ferry system. Much of my city, Mississauga paid for its infrastructure through developers levies and has been debt free and had a balanced budget until more recently. We are now facing the crisis that many municipalities face and that is the renewal of infrastructure through taxe increases and the lobbying for more of a piece of the federal taxes is underway. So if a developer is going to build million dollar houses on one of the islands that relies on the ferries why shouldn't they contribute to the pot through a special levy to offset the increased demand. And why shouldn't the buyer help offset some of the costs. For example how about people from other countries who buy vacation properties, and don't pay federal and provincial taxes on income in Canada. A property tax/levy tied to the service might be a great way. Locals and current residents could be grandfathered and/or phased in over a very long time with some protection for people who don't have the means to pay.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 19, 2008 12:58:33 GMT -8
[I think I'm getting the flavour of the SOF campaign: - BCF Management bad - NDP Government good. But the SOF means-to-its-goal is political, and this website is sounding like the pre-election campaign that it is. For me, I'm losing interest in the SOF message, but the fact that it's "ferries" is keeping me interested in an overall general way. But I've reached the cliff's edge in the ideological gulf that separates political wings. (very metaphorical, I think). ps: Is member "Kerryssi"'s signature quote inconsistent with his above-quoted post? Or does the signature-comment change depending on the government in power? There have been lots of people on this forum with a 'BCF Management bad' attitude. Sometimes it's fairly articulate, sometimes it's just 'they're really stupid cuz they didn't put on an extra sailing.' Admittedly, I'm pretty biased, but I think there's room for a thread with an openly political thrust on a forum that deals with all aspects of ferrydom, especially if we're inclusive enough to indulge fifteen year olds who hold forth on what an idiot Glen Clark was, and how the NDP destroyed BC Ferries. It's difficult these days to get a pro-union view on a lot of issues. BC Ferries is a pretty large player in the British Columbia economy, and they're largely unionized. It seems appropriate that on a forum like this their viewpoint should be heard. I guess we can listen, argue, or change the channel, as we see fit. ....not that I was trying to squelch any discussion re the union or the political slant. I was trying to express that my naive viewpoint of things finally realized that the SOF is mainly a political thing. Or at least that it's arguments and rhetoric are political. Not that that's a bad thing, it's again just my waking-up to the fact that it (the SOF campaign and the BCFMWU) is so political. And I personally find most type of political speeches or script (including the election ads) to be unsettling to me. I suppose my dream-world is where everybody gets along, and that's likely why I have an inherent aversion to political debate (maybe this is common for a consensus-seeker such as myself?). But all this being said, I'm glad the SOF website is discussed on our forum. Yes, it is a good avenue to discuss the political aspect of ferries.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Feb 19, 2008 13:43:53 GMT -8
[And I personally find most type of political speeches or script (including the election ads) to be unsettling to me. I suppose my dream-world is where everybody gets along, and that's likely why I have an inherent aversion to political debate (maybe this is common for a consensus-seeker such as myself?). I guess some would have it that politics operates on the same principle as our judicial system; that a vigorous airing of differences and of opposing 'truths' will somehow end up in the right course being followed. That's not necessarily antithetical to a consensus process, but, as you suggest, without civility it can be pretty unpleasant.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Feb 20, 2008 11:45:21 GMT -8
The information I have directly contradicts the mainstream medias relentless pounding of the NDP over the fast cats. The liberals have been playing politics with the ferries and are still doing so with the so called privatization and user pay. Since the media are owned by big business it is very difficult to get any information out which contradicts what they want you to think. For example, the NDP has not been any particular friend of unions and gets about 1/10 the financial support from them that the liberals get from big business but in all the media you see claims that the NDP is only representing workers. The SOF is not politically motivated but is rather trying to get information out to the public about the truth behind the privatization of BCFS and the fast cats. If you wish to interpret that as politically motivated that is up to you. Did you know that many of the small runs make money? It is some creative bookkeeping which makes it seem otherwise. Using BCFC own figures from a few years ago (before retirement) a run such as Vesuvius/Crofton needs an average load of 24 cars to pay for all costs including crew, refits,fuel,etc. The average load through the year was 27 cars which means it was making a profit. Since then fuel costs have gone up, wages have barely increased and at the same time traffic and fares have increased considerably therefore revenue has increased. I believe the run is making even more profit now. BCFS has hidden the huge management costs by attributing them to the runs. The formula, as explained to me by bcfc is... The number of passengers carried in the month of august x the number of runs made during the day x the length of the run. A run such as the Ves/Croft one has frequent overloads in August and travels full on nearly every run. It makes many trips per day. Even though the distance is not great the run winds up with a tremendous amount of overhead costed against it. This is overhead created by over 350 managers and management costs in the neighborhood of $ 100,000,000.00 per year to manage a business with about 4,500 employees,about half of whom are part time, and 36 ships. The management/employee ratio is about 1 to 11 when 1 to 50 is considered normal. You may claim that putting this information out is political or anti management. To me it is simply information which you would get no other way. As for my signature, all politititons, all parties.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 20, 2008 19:12:00 GMT -8
.....Did you know that many of the small runs make money? It is some creative bookkeeping which makes it seem otherwise. Using BCFC own figures from a few years ago (before retirement) a run such as Vesuvius/Crofton needs an average load of 24 cars to pay for all costs including crew, refits,fuel,etc. The average load through the year was 27 cars which means it was making a profit. Since then fuel costs have gone up, wages have barely increased and at the same time traffic and fares have increased considerably therefore revenue has increased. I believe the run is making even more profit now. BCFS has hidden the huge management costs by attributing them to the runs. The formula, as explained to me by bcfc is... The number of passengers carried in the month of august x the number of runs made during the day x the length of the run. A run such as the Ves/Croft one has frequent overloads in August and travels full on nearly every run. It makes many trips per day. Even though the distance is not great the run winds up with a tremendous amount of overhead costed against it. This is overhead created by over 350 managers and management costs in the neighborhood of $ 100,000,000.00 per year to manage a business with about 4,500 employees,about half of whom are part time, and 36 ships. The management/employee ratio is about 1 to 11 when 1 to 50 is considered normal. ... Kerry, thanks for that detailed post. The 3/31/2007 BCFS audited financial statements show administration expenses of $50,615,000. If there are other admin expenses, they might be buried in the totals for "operations" or "maintenance". I agree that using a high-traffic month, such as August" to determine the admin-cost allocation seems unreasonable. Using a traffic-count in general seems unreasonable, as both a full and half-empty trip will be impacted by the same level of "administrative support". re the # of managers: Is the 350 widely dispersed among locations? ie. how many are in the Coastal-Fort-Street office, vs. those in the field? And also, is that 350 figure actual management, or just all non-CBA employees? I suppose that there are some departments where there might be non-union / non-management people? such as IT computer dept....just wondering. And, here's a general question, and there's no agenda behind it: - how does the current management group for BCFS compare to previous regimes, such as the various groups that ran BCFC in the 70s, 80's and 90's? ie. in style, bias, competency, redundancy, etc? - Do you find that "management is management" regardless of the political tone in Victoria re the Gov't? ie. does the union always have the same sorts of issues with mgmt? Kerry, thanks for your time in posting on this thread (and all the others too). And happy b-day...belated.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Feb 20, 2008 20:26:14 GMT -8
Since the media are owned by big business it is very difficult to get any information out which contradicts what they want you to think. Actually, I used to work for "big media" (CKNW for my last two years as a news reporter) before I moved into communications, so I'd like to comment on the big business control allegation. At no time as a reporter at NW did I ever have a story killed or altered because it affected the business interests of a client. I never even met any of the sales staff there. In my current line of work being on the other side responding to media questions, I find the reporters I've had the pleasure of working with to be fair and balanced. You get better stories that way. As one example, I think of the arrival of the Coastal Renaissance. While there was coverage of the brand new ship and what it means for BC Ferries, there was also the perspective of the Shipbuilders' Union on the effects of not building it here.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Feb 20, 2008 21:08:50 GMT -8
kerryssi, CKNW I would not consider "big meida" unless it is under ownership of CanWest. It is when you hit the big media down in the states when it gets biased to extreme levels.
markkaj, when did you get out of CKNW? Do you still have contacts inside CKNW and if BCFS has any information going out to the media that the media is not showing or is BCFS still playing keep the mouth shut?
|
|
|
Post by kylefossett on Feb 20, 2008 21:19:30 GMT -8
kerryssi, CKNW I would not consider "big meida" unless it is under ownership of CanWest. It is when you hit the big media down in the states when it gets biased to extreme levels. CKNW is owned by CORUS who is about as big as you can get for radio station ownership in Canada. 4 stations in Vancouver allow.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Feb 20, 2008 22:27:21 GMT -8
Hi folks:
Political Incorrectness: most of my friends and colleagues are now out of media in the six years since I left it so I don't really have an answer to your question. In terms of media relations, I always found BC Ferries to be responsive to my needs when I called them up for material.
I'll add to my earlier comments that I do understand some of the media bias that creeps into things (or is a little more blatant in terms of say FOX News). I was just lucky not to be affected in my day-to-day work.
CKNW is/was the biggest radio newsroom in Vancouver, and was actually part of WIC (one-time parent of BCTV before the Canwest purchase).
M
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Feb 21, 2008 7:52:44 GMT -8
Haha Flug I smell an auditor in the room. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Feb 21, 2008 9:12:26 GMT -8
When I say management I do not include officers or supervisors. The 350 figure includes people who make $ 100,000.00 per year and up. These figures are out of date and are probably higher now. The $ 100,000,000.00 million figure is also out of date but is probably close to the mark. You are getting your information from what is put out to the public, I got mine from inside the company. At one time I had a group who got all our information from the company itself. The figures showed some extremely creative book keeping and manipulation. For example, the company wanted to close down rte9 (Tsa/Long harbour) This was a decision made by the CEO at the time and had nothing to do with the operation. The company put out that the run was loosing $26,000,000.00 per year so it had to go. We did some digging and found they were costing refits for 7 ferries against the run as well as counting it as 8 runs for overhead purposes. The actual loss was $1,000,000.00 which just matched the revenue which had been re routed from rte 9 to rte 1 via through fares. That is just an example . We took our findings directly to Clarke who ordered an investigation into BC Ferries. Unfortunately a distraction in the form of a sun deck became huge media news and the investigation, which had barely been reported quietly went away. We then took our information to a friend who was a retired editor at the Times Colonist. He set up an appointment with their political reporter. The reporter was delighted as we had all the facts in writing. He said it would be front page news. A week later he called and said his editor had killed the story. We took it to two more reporters, both were eager to see it in print. Their editors killed it. Sam Bawlf, ex CEO, ex Cabinet Minister wrote an expose on the ferries and their hidden costs and mismanagement. He sent it out to all major media in Canada. The only one that had the nerve to print anything was the Toronto Globe and Mail. I have a copy of the report that Sam gave me. Ralph Mair (?) was going to do a week long radio show with ferry workers as guests. He got shut down in two days. No explanation given. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, just presenting information which you will not get in the mainstream media.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2008 16:57:35 GMT -8
Hello Sorry I have not been here to answer your questions sooner, but have been very busy.
1. The Feb 5th, was a good meeting, but poor turnout. I was happy because I made some new contacts.
2. Looking into the Island Sky issue and will report back soon.
As a matter of fact there are some great BCF Managers, but there are others that have new clue how the Marine Industry works.
I will hold any political party and or governments feet to the fire to protect our Marine Highway.
Gregg
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 21, 2008 18:49:39 GMT -8
Thanks for your response, Gregg.
I trust that you can filter-out my rhetoric re the Island Sky....I was getting a bit worked-up when I wrote that, so please interpret accordingly.
I'm really just curious how the shipyard union feels about projects like Island Sky. We know that they were disappointed that the Super-C's went overseas, but how do they feel about the smaller-ship work here.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 8, 2008 7:37:31 GMT -8
The Save-On-Foods (oops, I meant Save Our Ferries) tour comes to Nanaimo on Tuesday March 11. It's at Beban Bowen Park (activity room 1) from 7-9pm.
It's billed as "Ferry Fare Forum" (or F3 as I may call it).
The headliners are: - Carol James - opposition leader - Len Krog - Nanaimo-south MLA - (Coastal) Gary Coons - opposition ferry critic.
I plan on attending, as it should be interesting to see and hear the presentations.
I found it Interesting to see that the newspaper ad (in Nanaimo Daily News) makes it seem a New Democrat event, with no mention of SOF or BCFMWU.
Nanaimo's best ferry journalist, Val Wilson (Daily News) has an article on the FFF, in the newspaper's same addition. Here are some quotes from that:
....
Here's a quote from MLA Len Krog (who is a very hard-working MLA, has a great community-involvement record in Nanaimo...):
....
.....
===============
I'll let you all know what I thought of Tuesday's meeting. I look forward to F3; and my first ever NDP-event. I'll make sure that I wear an old '70s orange T-shirt and a "don't blame me, I'm NDP" button from that same era...
....and I'll make sure I take my "rhetoric blocking ear-filters", that allow me to ignore the political rhetoric and actually hear the message of what's being said.
All kidding aside, I think this will be an interesting event. I look forward to saying hello to Mr. Coons.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 9, 2008 19:44:05 GMT -8
The Nanaimo meeting is at Bowen Park complex (not Beban Park, like I erroneously previously posted).
Not that the SOF website has anything to say on this event or location......not a word.
But then again, the newspaper ad makes no mention of SOF; it's an NDP event.
But an SOF rally by any other name is still an SOF rally.
I'll be there. Film at 11... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 11, 2008 20:12:14 GMT -8
I attended the F4 rally in Nanaimo tonight. This is the Fair Ferry Fare Forum, a New Democrat event, with Save-Our-Ferries presence.
I was happy for the chance to see people in-person, that I'd only seen on TV. Carol James, NDP leader, was such a person.
I also was thrilled to meet Mr. Gary Coons, MLA for mid-coast, and Opposition ferry critic. Again, seeing someone in-person really helps fill in the context for me. Mr. Coons made a great impression with a common-sense, down-to-earth speaking style.
I also was very happy to meet Gregg Dow, from SOF. Again, context of meeting in-person was great.
My suspicions of it being a political meeting were correct; it was. But my fears re that weren't. (sit down for this one): I was actually able to see the logical connection between political-rhetoric and political-change. ie. Changing the ferry fare structure can only be done politically, and rhetoric / political-speeches are part of the way the political process works. So I'll try to view the rhetoric stuff as a "means" rather than an end. But this isn't supposed to be about "me", and my aversion to polarized discussions.
The F4 meeting made it clear that the avenue of changing BC Ferries policy is political, because the post-2003 Corporate Structure is a creation of the Provincial Gov't; so only the Provincial Gov't can change it...........and we change the Provincial Gov't.
Mr. Coons was effective in stating that Ferry officials like David Hahn and Martin Crilly are doing a great job, at the job that they've been mandated to do. So for those people who desire change in the Ferry structure, they need to change the mandate, not the person.
Mr. Coons did a PowerPoint presentation, and had the Ferry-Advisory-Committee stats that he highlighted.
I asked a question, during the Q&A session: "Do you think the MV Nicola is a Q-class or N-class ship?". (just kidding, I didn't). I did ask the panel that assuming the NDP is elected the next Gov't, how easy would it be to legally undo the Quasi-Public structure of Ferries. Would there be things that they legally wouldn't be able to do? ie. binding-term of years in the Coastal Ferry Act.
The answer was that they simply don't know, because they don't have public access to the entities-involved yet. ie. Until they become Gov't, they can't actually determine what how the "un-do" procedure would work.
Mr. Dow from SOF mentioned that next week the SOF website will release a new article re the fast-cats, with a "peanuts" headline (ie. "sold for peanuts"). They have an engineering report from a world-leader company that gives options for using the fastcats to "give the best value to the taxpayer". Guess what: it wasn't likely a $20M OBO sale.
Mr. Dow and Mr. Coons both mentioned that they read this here forum website regularly. I trust that they can discern through our own brand of forum rhetoric here, and get a glimpse of how John Q. Public views ferry issues, through our many postings, memories, suggestions and rants.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 12, 2008 14:29:37 GMT -8
Flugel, thanks for that great report - I really appreciated reading it!
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 12, 2008 15:26:00 GMT -8
Mr. Dow and Mr. Coons both mentioned that they read this here forum website regularly. I trust that they can discern through our own brand of forum rhetoric here, and get a glimpse of how John Q. Public views ferry issues, through our many postings, memories, suggestions and rants. To clarify, they mentioned this to me personally in post meeting conversations. No, they didn't have our proboards forum web-address on their powerpoint presentation.... ;D
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 12, 2008 15:48:00 GMT -8
IMy suspicions of it being a political meeting were correct; it was. But my fears re that weren't. (sit down for this one): I was actually able to see the logical connection between political-rhetoric and political-change. ie. Changing the ferry fare structure can only be done politically, and rhetoric / political-speeches are part of the way the political process works. So I'll try to view the rhetoric stuff as a "means" rather than an end. But this isn't supposed to be about "me", and my aversion to polarized discussions. I have a really simple rule of thumb about that, namely, that "rhetoric is fine, as long as it's my rhetoric". Or, to garble an old line, "I'm robustly assertive, you're rhetorical." I trust your accounts of these things, since I know you are studiously, and, at times, annoyingly fair minded. How well attended was this session, and what was the attitude of those attending? Did people seem pro/anti union or company?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 12, 2008 18:24:54 GMT -8
How well attended was this session, and what was the attitude of those attending? Did people seem pro/anti union or company? There were approx 50 people or maybe 60 (I know, I should have done an accurate count.....). It was an anti privatisation crowd, and had a lot of people who seemed to personally know the local NDP MLA and even Ms. James. Some people had written-out questions, others just gave comments. One lady is a small business owner who relies on assured-loading service; as she never knows when a customer will require work to be done instantly. So she depends on assured-loading for her businesses survival. She was peeved at the 50% increase in the price of that premium (without notice). She wrote Martin Crilly about it, and he replied that BCFS had a 9-page legal opinion that the assured-loading fees were outside of the ferry-commissioner's mandate. Mr. Coons explained that the ferry commissioner is paid by BCFS, and that the Auditor-General referred to the situation as a "Captured Regulator" or something like that, re Mr. Crilly's lack of true independence. The question was asked about the 9-page legal opinion re the assured-loading tix: "If BCFS paid for that legal opinion, and if BCFS pays the expenses of the Ferry Commissioner, then how would the Commissioner ever hire a lawyer to challenge BCFS on something?". Overall, it was likely unanimous support against privatization. People seemed to understand that their quarrel re ferry-fares is against the Gov'ts work, and not against the BCFS company. So there was no Hahn bashing, or management bashing. Falcon and Campbell were the targets of the audience. Being an "NDP crowd", and with me knowing some of the people there, I'd say it was a "pro Union" crowd. Ms. Miller from BCFMWU was there too. Like I alluded too earlier, the common theme seemed to be the illogicality of calling BCFS a private company, when it is still our public ships being run partly with a large amount of public money. And the window-dressing to make the company appear independent (ie. Ferry Commissioner) was an example of the difference between de-facto and de-jure re the company's independence. Final quote of the night was from a "little old lady" who said something like: ".....The only solution that I can think of is to change it back to the way it was". Oh, and one man mentioned the "Road Equivalent Tariff" that Scotland is using. I posted a news article on this in the intl-section of this forum, a while back.
|
|